Leadership

 There's been a lot of talk about leadership of late; I see it on my twitter feed, in Facebook and in the news.  Good leadership seems to have taken a backseat to the terrible examples of bad leadership.   I thought I'd chime in with a few of my own observations.  I've been the minion, and in middle management, but I've also worked with the military long enough to have a pretty good perspective of leaders of all ranks, ages, sexes, makes and models.  

There are so many books that talk about leadership, what good leadership looks and acts like.  Yet, there are still many who do not get it.  Recent examples include an Army Sergeant Major getting the axe for "unprofessionalism"and just yesterday an Appeals Judge was nailed for creating a toxic work environment.  

One would think that the military would be a good place to create good leaders.  You could be forgiven for thinking that, but alas, it's not true.  The military creates terrible leaders, just the same as the civilian side of the workforce does.  As I'm a historian, let's take a look at some examples of leadership and see where this goes.  Hang on, could get bumpy. 

From the personal papers collection of Major General Paul Fontana, we find this gem.  While titled, "In a Nutshell," it really should be titled "Some Basic Leadership Skills."  Broken into three parts (Six Ways to Make People Like You, Twelve Ways of Winning People to You[sic] Way of Thinking and Nine Ways to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment" it really is sound advice for leaders.  

Thinking as an employee for a moment, I think of those I've had in leadership positions above me and how this was (or wasn't used).  Part 3, Rule 4 is the first one I learned.  I learned it from Paul and Christine Grisamore, owners of Grisamore Farms -- my first job.  I was never told what to do, rather asked to help, or to perform some task.  No matter what it was, it was always in the form of a question.  When I was in a leadership position, I tried to use this always when needing someone to do something (I wasn't always able, but I tried).  

Part 3, Rule 1: Begin with praise and honest appreciation.  When this is absent, respect goes right out the window.  Resentment fills in the void.  The lack of appreciation from your higher-ups is a sure fire way to turn a good employee into a free-loader.   This also goes hand-in-hand with the mantra "Praise in public, correct in private."  

Part 2, Rule 8: Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.  This is another form of respect; again, when omitted turns the person against you, and often will turn them into a non-communicator.  Why would they want to tell you anything if you're not even going to consider their point of view?  You don't have to agree with them in the end, but listen--honestly listen and try to understand where they are coming from.

Part 2, Rule 3:  If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.  This is huge!  The inability to (first) recognize you're wrong and (second) admit that you're wrong, is sheer and simple arrogance.  Your people will run from you quickly if you refuse to take this principle to heart.

 All parts and rules from Gen Fontana's list are applicable and wise for leaders to embrace.  I freely admit I was not aware of this list when I was in a leadership position, and could have used it.  I still have a great deal to learn.

So what about leadership lessons from two of the great leaders of the Corps? Lejeune? Butler?  Why not.  I created a presentation on their leadership stylings and it has been postponed, so why not tell you a little about what I picked up.

 

After years of studying these two and the history of the Corps, it's clear that Lejeune is the 'thinking' leader and Butler is the 'doing' leader.

During his career, Lejeune was assigned to a variety of posts and stations and encountered from many senior enlisted Marines--one such Marine was Sergeant Major John Quick.  By the time the two served together, Quick had already served 22 years, and Lejeune only a few more; however, Lejeune still took notice of Quick's interactions with his men. 

"A calm, forceful, intelligent, loyal and courageous man he was.  I never knew him to raise his voice, or use profane language, and yet he executed and obtained prompt and explicit obedience from all persons subject to his orders."  Maybe SgtMaj Quick had a list similar to that of Gen Fontana?

Butler, on the other hand, learned leadership under fire.  Butler's first duty as a Marine officer (a green one, and very young at that) was in the midst of the Spanish-American War, in Cuba.  His company commander was a 54 year old Captain Mancil Clay Goodrell, a veteran of the Civil War and a Marine for more than 20 years.  Goodrell took the young officer under his wing.  While no actual skirmishes or combat took place while Butler was in Cuba, he was occasionally subjected to sniper fire.  Demonstrating initiative, Butler asked Goodrell if he could join the Captain on his nightly inspections.  The request was approved.  During one of these nightly inspections, Goodrell strode ahead of Butler across open fields, seemingly indifferent to potential dangers.  Snipers began to fire at the two men.  Butler splayed himself on the ground, while Goodrell remained standing. 

"What the hell is the matter?" he snorted.  Goodrell demonstrated courage under fire and Butler soaked it up!  Years later, Butler noted that "whatever luck or skill I've had in the soldiering business I attribute to the teaching and example of that splendid officer."

Learning by example goes both ways--you can learn traits from good leaders, and as a leader, you must remember that others are watching and learning from your example--good or bad!

There are many traits of good leaders.  A great book one should pick up is The Servant Way: Leadership Principles from John A. Lejeune by Maurice Buford (or as I know him Chaplain Buford).  It really is quite fantastic.  Servant Leadership comes from Robert Greenleaf in the 1970s and much of what you see in Gen Fontana's list, is incorporated in the 10 Principles of Servant Leadership.

Regrettably, leadership courses aren't offered as a standard education; often it's left to on the job training, which doesn't always yield the best results.  In the Federal hiring system, newly minted leaders (supervisors, managers, directors, anyone with subordinates) are not required to attend leadership 101 courses, or "how to manage civilians" course.  I know, because I wasn't.  I also know that those who are hired into civilian positions are often former and retired military, and just because they wore the uniform does not mean they know anything about being a supervisor, especially a supervisor of civilians.  

Further, those in uniform, in leadership positions, may not have the skills needed to lead outside of combat.  Today's military is more than just "motivate them to fight."  One must also learn to manage, inspire, encourage, and build up your subordinates without screaming, belittling, disrespecting or creating a toxic environment.  However, these (thinking of the Sergeant Major mentioned at the front of this) folks often learned by example--they were screamed at, cussed out, threatened and disrespected and therefore think that is the proper way to motivate. 

Are there examples of positive leaders in your life? What did they do that really impacted you positively and drove you to do more than the bare minimum? I'd love to hear!

Second Chances

In today's military, and most especially those of the enlisted ranks, second chances are few and far between.  I'm thinking of a particular case close to me, but will not speak of names at the moment.  Suffice it to say, a screw up that occurred while the enlisted person was very junior (and at least a decade has passed by) has succeeded in stunting a promising career--one where the person learned from their mistake, made the appropriate repentance, and has gone on to become a good leader of others.  However, because of this early career mistake, any further advancement is sadly impossible.  One would argue that the second chance was being allowed to reenlist and serve long enough to retire; however, what more could be learned from this person had they been allowed to move forward having seen the error of their way, and what damage has been done by disallowing this?

I was reminded of this person while digging through my list of Polar Marines again.  Marine X (names withheld again) enlisted on 31 July 1928 and went through the recruit depot at Parris Island.  When recruit training was complete, Marine X went to the 87th Company, Signal Battalion at Quantico where he attended Radio School.

Just four months later, Marine X was enroute to China to serve with the American Legation in Peking; while there he was assigned as a student operator at the radio station.    In September 1930 he was sent to Cavite to attend the radio school there, and the it was back to China to serve until December 1931.

Once back in the US, Private X was assigned to the 2d Signal Company at San Diego.  And in May 1932, we see a very short entry in the muster rolls.  

Unfortunately, the entry doesn't give any specifics and the previous month muster roll doesn't have any clues either.  However, a pattern begins here in May 1932.  No punishment it seems, but this will be the last time that forgiveness occurs.

In June he is transferred to Aircraft Squadrons, West Coast Expeditionary Forces in San Diego; he's assigned to air-ground instruction, which I suspect is radio communication between aircraft and ground forces.  On 1 August 1932, Private X reenlists.  

In October 1932, Private X is reassigned to VJ-7M (Marine Utility Squadron 7) as radio operator and plane mechanic.  Through the middle years of the 1930s, Private X serves with VS-15M (Marine Service Squadron 15) on the USS Lexington.  On 26 July 1934, he is promoted to Corporal and served in August begins being allowed to fly (even though he's not rated as a Naval Aviation Pilot).

While serving with VB-4M (Marine Bombing Squadron 4) at San Diego, his enlistment expires and his is discharged, and awarded the Good Conduct Medal with bar.  Eight years of service marred only slightly in 1932, and therefore Corporal X is reenlisted on 6 August, and promoted to Sergeant.  However, just weeks later, he goes AOL (absent over leave) for three days and is busted.

While he's busted, he does not lose his newly received Sergeant stripes, and goes on to serve with VB-4M (redesignated VMB-2 in July 1937) until another hiccup in February 1939.  This time he was AWOL (absent without leave) for three days and thus the consequences were stiffer.  

The loss of a stripe, and back to Corporal sounds as thought it would be sufficient to stymie any future issues.  However, this wouldn't be as interesting if it ended here.

On the first of March (yes, just the next month), Corporal X was transferred to Headquarters and Service Squadron 2, 2d Marine Aircraft Group, and just four days later he is AWOL once again.  This time, four days lapsed before he returned.

This time, the court martial sentenced him to the "Big Chicken Dinner" and he was confined in the brig through the rest of the month (PAL=prisoner at large).  In the next month, we find out his fate.

It seems while serving confinement, the bad conduct discharge was remitted by the Secretary of the Navy under the condition that Cpl X maintain a satisfactory record for six months. (name redacted)

I started wondering if Cpl X was going to be able to serve six months without another hiccup, but I already knew he served until 1946 (at the least) because of his name on the polar expeditions, so he must have done something right.

15 January 1940 comes along and Cpl X is once again promoted to Sergeant, and on 6 August 1940 he is discharged with character as VG (very good), not the EX (excellent) that is normally seen but I'm surprised that it's not worse considering all that has transpired.  He reenlisted 10 days later and on 9 December 1940 his is promoted to Staff Sergeant.  

Anyone else seeing a pattern? For two days in January 1941, SSgt X goes AOL again!  Keeping count? That's 4 times in a span of nearly 12 years.  This time, SSgt X is tried and sentenced to a loss of pay for two months, but not a loss of rank or confinement, surprisingly.

By October 1941, we find our Marine assigned to Marine Aircraft Group 21 and sporting the rank of Technical Sergeant.  TSgt X continues to serve in San Diego through 1941 and into 1942.  On 25 October 1942 he is promoted to Master Technical Sergeant.  Does the pattern hold? I know you're wondering!

The January 1943 muster roll demonstrates that the pattern of behavior holds true.  Once again, loss of rank--back to Technical Sergeant he goes.  It's not long lived though, as by July 1943, his is promoted to Master Technical Sergeant once again, while serving with Marine Base Defense Air Group 43 at El Centro.

MTSgt X continues to serve and deploys to the Pacific in mid-1944 with MBDAG-45 (later MAG-45).  With the end of the war, he returns to El Centro and to MAG-35.  It is in October 1946 that his service with the polar expedition (as part of Fleet Air Wing 5) brings him to the crossroad of my attention.  By January 1947, while on the expedition, he is promoted to Master Sergeant.

In January 1948, MSgt X is assigned to VMR-152 (Marine Transport Squadron) where he finishes his career as a Marine; on 31 July he is transferred to the reserves for retirement after 20 years of colorful service.  

This brings me back to the point at the beginning; MSgt X has a record of being AWOL or AOL five times throughout his twenty years, but is allowed to continue to advance through the enlisted ranks (to the most senior rank possible at the time).  While he is admonished, and makes amends, he is not stifled from advancement, or held back from deploying when needed.  

One might argue that it is because it was wartime and all men were needed.  However, the personal case I mentioned earlier, was also during wartime (Afghanistan and Iraq), and yet, this enlisted man was stifled at every turn regardless of glowing reports from his superiors and who never stepped out of line again, rather he turned the leaf and is now a fine example of a good SNCO.  His career will end there at 20 years, and I guess one must be grateful for being allowed to retire, but what could have been achieved by this enlisted man, or what could have benefited those around him by his example?  We'll never know.

Second chances, instead of "zero tolerance", often are far better examples.  History is full of shining examples of those who overcame their own mistakes to achieve far loftier goals, but what of those who are stunted because of zero tolerance, and what about those who are unable to see that one can learn from their past and go on to bigger and better things?

Changjin 70 Years Later

Because nothing I could say would ever be better than what has already been written, I am keeping this post brief.  Suffice it to say, this is in honor of those who fought, those who died, and those who have yet to come home from this battle 70 years later.

 

Many think of Changjin (Chosin) as a Marine only battle, where the Corps fought "in another direction" to get out of the frozen hell.  However, there were many members of the US Army fighting and dying right there with the Marines, and one must not forget the Bootnecks of 41 Commando (said as Four One, not forty one).  

 

If you're inclined to read more, might I suggest the following:

U.S. Marines at the Changjin Reservoir: Frozen Chosin

Nightmare at the Chosin Reservoir 

41 Commando/Task Force Drysdale at Chosin

If you really want to get down in the weeds of it, look at Vol III of the US Marines in Korea Series  

Now, for all those who didn't come home from Changjin, and are simply waiting for us to be able to get back there to find them.  We remember you; you are not forgotten.

 So, when you're feeling a little bumbed about some snow, or your dinner got cold because you were busy or you're bitching about having to stay in your warm house because of COVID, read some of the accounts of these men and remember, there are far worse things that you could be doing.

 

 

The Great Man Version of History--Not

 Ask any historian about their education in the practice of history and you will likely hear about the various schools or approach to the study of history (ie longue duree, social, political, etc), and there are the specific fields within each (don't get me started on having to read EP Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class while in grad school). 

For this post, I'm looking specifically at the field of military history and it's approach to history focusing on the "great man" aspect of writing biographical military history. 

Go to any book store and you're likely to find books on the "great men" of military history--Napoleon, George Washington, Ulysses Grant; drilling deeper in Marine Corps history you'll find books on Puller, Butler, Lejeune, etc.  

I've always been a proponent of the micro version of military history, small unit actions, the minutiae history that is overlooked (insignia for example) and individual Marines that generally don't have books about them.  It's these individual Marines that I believe are the backbone of the Corps.  I've been often heard saying, "You know the Latin root of Corps, right?"  One cannot have a Marine Corps without bodies.  I am NOT a "Great Man" historian.

As I've been compiling a list of Marines involved in the various polar expeditions and operations (1840-1956), I've come across some fascinating individuals, who collectively contributed to a very unique aspect of the Marine Corps' history.  

Some of these Marines I've already written about, Downey, but most haven't seen the light of day just yet; lots of work to do still.  But here's a run down of a few.  For those who served in the 20th century (no I'm not ignoring the 1840's Marines), most were veterans of World War II; some went on to serve in Korea as well, and only a very few have service in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.  Several are Mustangs--going from enlisted to commissioned officers via the warrant officer route.  At least three were cited for valor in combat with Silver Stars and Bronze Stars.  One was even a prisoner of war in Korea, survived and wrote a book about his experience.

Ferranto Book

One of the questions I'm attempting to answer is why each Marine was chosen for the duty, and their MOS history gives us the clues.  There were amphibian tractor and tank mechanics, electricians, construction engineers, shore party experts, combat correspondents, radio operators, pilots and aircraft mechanics.  Even with their useful MOS employed, their experiences are varied to include duty with the parachute Marines, Raiders, service as recruiters, ships detachments, and one that was one of the first Embassy Marines from the time just after the MOU between the USMC and State Department was signed in 1948.  One Marine was even a patent holder for his inventions.

 These Marines, at least the ones I've researched thus far (more than 60 on the list so far, so not quite done) demonstrate the cumulative effects of various backgrounds and experiences that came together to contribute to the successful polar expeditions and operations. 

Are the contributions of individual Marines, such as these, more important than the contributions of a single 'great man'?  I'm not arguing that those deemed "great" men of the Corps, Lejeune for instance, aren't 'great'.  Lejeune's impact on the history of the Corps cannot be overstated or overlooked; in fact I believe that Lejeune is an aberration in the collective history of the Corps simply because his impact was so significant that is unique unto itself.  I am arguing that the collective impact of all the individual Marine (man and woman) not deemed "great" is far more significant that the few 'great men' overall.  

Go back to my question regarding the root of the word corps.  The Marine Corps is a collection of bodies (male and female) and it is those bodies that combine to create the singular Corps of Marines.  It is the corps of individuals contributing their various skills and experiences that make the Corps' impactful history.  To demonstrate this, let's look at Lewis Puller.  For all of Chesty's Navy Crosses, how many have been awarded to other Marines for individual acts of bravery? Cumulatively these other Marines total far more than Chesty's five Navy Crosses. 

Meme from https://www.military.com/marine-corps/5-reasons-why-chesty-puller-marine-corps-legend.html

Don't get me wrong, five by one person is nothing to sneeze at, and I'm not trying to denigrate his acts, rather to demonstrate that the unknown Marines have contributed more as a whole than the one man with a colorful nickname.  

It is through the tales of these lesser known (or unknown) Marines that I choose to view the history of the Corps.   If it were possible to know every man and woman who served in the Marine Corps, good or bad, and to have information on each one for all to read, I would.   I guess this latest project is just my attempt to ensure that these Marines and their service is not overshadowed, let alone forgotten. 

(sorry for the funky formatting; I haven't yet figured out the issue or how to fix it)

 

History and Traditions, Foundation Stones or Stumbling Blocks?

Disclaimer: Another little piece I started writing, got excited that it might be published, and was turned down.  To be fair, the intended publication didn't allow for the length needed--I didn't have enough space to flesh out all the thoughts (tying aviation to the MAGTF and some other things).   This really was more about telling those folks who are deriding the possible decisions of the CMC (in this case, the possible closures of the recruit depots) that there is a larger tradition at work here, and being tied to the past strictly for the sake of the past isn't it. So here's what I think about the real tradition of the Marine Corps.  Sorry, no pictures.

History and Traditions, Foundation Stones or Stumbling Blocks?

One cannot argue that there are major changes afoot in the Marine Corps; the deactivation of the tank battalions, reorganization of Training and Education Command into a Lieutenant General billet, and the possible closures of the current recruit depots in favor of a singular location spring to mind.  In fact, on 25 October 2020, “Marine Corps Times” posted a story about this very topic.  In the Marine Corps Times Facebook post, commentors argued that it was the death of the Corps to close these recruit depots and it was a destruction of “Core [sic] foundations.” These arguments are the misuse of history and traditions.  It’s true, history (and historians) can't help you with the technology or budget issues, but the things the Corps is going through aren't new, and looking to the past can be useful at a time such as this.  In a service that prides itself on honoring its past, the use of history and traditions alone may do more to stimy forward progress than propel it. Yet, history and traditions are at the heart of the Marine Corps and the question to close one, or both, of the recruit depots.  With that in mind, what if the Corps’ leadership asked themselves the following questions:  How did the leadership deal with possible disbandment in the early 20th century? How did new technology change the nature of warfare, particularly the airplane?  Was it strictly tradition they followed, or did their predecessors follow the tradition of change?

First, the matter of the history of the location of the recruit depots themselves must be examined and placed in the proper historical context.  As outlined in the official brief history of recruit training, For more than 100 years, recruits have been trained at Parris Island (formerly Port Royal) and for 98 years at San Diego.  However, for more than 135 years, recruit training was primitive and decentralized; it was performed by non-commissioned officers at various locations across the Marine Corps.  Recruits were trained simply in the “principles of military movement” and how to use a rifle.  This was the tradition for those first 135 years—for the majority of the Marine Corps’ history, recruits were NOT trained at Parris Island or San Diego. 

But in 1911, Major General Commandant William P. Biddle established the requirement that all recruits complete two months training at one of the four newly created recruit depots—Philadelphia, Norfolk, Puget Sound and Mare Island.  It wasn’t long before these locations were consolidated into single depots on each coast—Mare Island and Port Royal (Parris Island).  The training program Biddle outlined included drill, physical exercise, personal combat, and intensive marksmanship qualification with the recently-adopted M1903 Springfield rifle.  The implementation of a Corps-wide training curricula, at two centralized locations minimized irregularities, and produced more uniform Marines, each with the same skills and abilities. 

These changes came at a critical time for the Marine Corps. The second decade of the 20th century stretched the Marine Corps’ capabilities and manpower as never before. In 1914, the Marines deployed to Vera Cruz, Mexico; in 1915, the 1st Brigade with two regiments was deployed to Haiti; in 1916, the 2d Brigade was deployed to the Dominican Republic.  By the time the United States entered the First World War on 6 April 1917, there were Marines in the Caribbean, China, Philippines, Guam and Cuba, and many more gearing up for combat in France.  Masses of new Marines were needed, and the recruit depots at Parris Island (renamed from Port Royal to the erroneous Paris Island in 1917) and Mare Island were expanded to meet the need. 

 Changes were well underway on the west coast when the US entered WWI, partly because of the events south of the border.  The official history of the San Diego recruit depot states: “Only 12 miles north of the Mexican border and possessed of an excellent harbor, the city [San Diego] readily recommended itself to the strategic eye as an expeditionary base on the west coast when the need for such a base became evident in the early twentieth century. San Diego was not only convenient to the Pacific approaches of Latin America, but it could also serve advantageously as a port of embarkation the Far East. Concrete action toward establishing a base there, however, awaited some precipitating event. Mexican political instability was to provide the catalyst that returned the Marines to San Diego for the first time since the Mexican War and subsequently caused a permanent Marine Corps post to be established there.”  Camp Howard, on North Island, was established in July 1914 with the arrival of the 4th Regiment under Colonel Joseph H. Pendleton after standing off the coast of Mexico for possible landing in Vera Cruz.

Operations shifted from Camp Howard to the mainland on 11 December 1914.  Eight days later, Colonel Pendleton proclaimed the establishment of Marine Barracks San Diego.  The Marines were well-entrenched at San Diego; the favorable location grew in size and importance into a west coast facility for expeditionary forces to organize and train, in the same model as that of Marine Barracks Philadelphia on the east coast.  In 1923, the recruit depot at Mare Island relocated to San Diego.  While the official history published in 1962 does not indicate why it was relocated, the growing importance of the location at San Diego possibly had something to do with the decision.

 Port Royal, South Carolina, as recorded in the official history of the depot, was initially a Navy facility guarded by Marines as early as 1891 and slowly grew to a full barracks by 1909.  Two years later, a recruit depot and an officers’ school were established at the location; however, this was short-lived as the depot and school were relocated to Norfolk, Virginia, in 1911, and the facility reorganized into a Navy disciplinary installation.  This too was temporary, for in 1915 the recruit depot returned to Port Royal, where it remains today.  Again, the official history does not indicate why the relocation took place; it is possible that the facility at Norfolk was simply inadequate. 

 As demonstrated by the creation of the recruit depots and their expanded instruction, the Corps was taking into account the changing times and flexing itself to meet the needs. The strength of the Marine Corps does not rely solely on traditions and history, rather also includes the ability to adapt and overcome.  The history of the Corps is replete with such reevaluation and redirection, which time proved to be the wisest decisions for the service.  In his 1993 history The Marine Corps' Search for a Mission, 1880-1898, noted Corps historian Jack Shulimson outlined the doldrums of the 19th century that left the Marine Corps vulnerable to obsolescence and possible disbandment; these dark days left impressions on the future leaders such as John A. Lejeune.  In the decade before World War I, Lejeune witnessed the necessity to pivot the Marine Corps away from duty as Navy guards, ships snipers and occasional landing parties, and embraced the Advanced Base Force concept (ABF).  Initially dismissed by Marine leadership unwilling to change with the times, the concept established the mission that the Marine Corps would serve as the Navy’s expeditionary force to assist the fleet in seizing and defending advanced bases.  Upon his ascendency to Major General Commandant in 1921, Lejeune embraced this concept and modified it further into the amphibious warfare doctrine studied and practiced through the 1920s and 30s; the final exam being the successes of World War II Pacific operations.  Through Lejeune’s acceptance and expansion of the ABF concept, the Corps was no longer relegated to ad hoc landing parties, or sentinels of unruly sailors; Lejeune had put the Marine Corps on equal footing and in partnership with the Navy.

 Another such rejection of the status quo was the addition of aviation to the arsenal of the Marine Corps, traditionally recorded as the day that First Lieutenant Alfred A. Cunningham arrived at Annapolis for training as a naval aviator on 22 May 1912.   Before Cunningham began his campaign of requests for assignment to aviation training, the Marine Corps was not interested in aviation.  Only after the Major General Commandant tired of Cunningham’s relentless requests was the younger Marine assigned to Annapolis.  The first chapter of the official history of early Marine Corps aviation demonstrates how it expanded over the course of the next five years, and again, it was only the urging, insisting and cajoling of Cunningham that saw the First Marine Aviation Force’s deployment to combat in France during World War I.  Even upon arrival, it was only Cunningham’s firm and swift action saved the Corps’ fliers from becoming behind-the-front cargo pilots for the Army when their own aircraft were lost in transit. 

Through the four months that Marines flew in combat over the Western Front, it was Cunningham that drove them forward and ensured their successes, accumulating a record of 126 flights, in which two Marines earned the Medal of Honor, four earned the Distinguished Service Medal and 16 were awarded the Navy Cross for their actions.  The fliers also learned the most crucial skill of Marine aviators—support of the ground forces through such actions as the first aerial resupply of infantry on 2 October 1918.   In his 1920 Marine Corps Gazette article “The Value of Aviation to the Marine Corps,” Cunningham extolled the virtues of aviation to a skeptical Marine Corps based on the lessons of his experiences in the First World War, lessons such as aerial resupply. Cunningham asserted that the only reason for aviation was the assistance of the troops on the ground to successfully carry out their missions. 

As well demonstrated in Wray Johnson’s Biplanes at War: US Marine Corps Aviation in the Small Wars Era, 1915-1934, it was in the proving grounds of Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua during the 1920s and 1930s that Marine Corps leadership realized the value of aviation as foretold by Cunningham.  During the “Banana Wars” the Marine aviators learned many of the skills needed to win World War II—close air support, and aerial resupply were expanded and mastered.  Marine aviation went from an unwanted, and little understood capability, to become a critical skill and necessary must-have in every clime and place Marines operate today.  While aviation was not an overnight revelation to Corps leaders, it slowly integrated itself into nearly every aspect of Marine operations—direct combat (air-to-air), combat support, and in partnership with the ground forces.

 As demonstrated above, the Marine Corps has often had to make uncomfortable changes in order to move forward and remain relevant to needs of the nation.  With regard to the location of recruit training, there is no doubt that weighing on the minds of the decision makers is this question: With the need to incorporate new training methods and integrate the Corps, can the current depots accomplish this mission? A big point that one might argue is that San Diego is no longer a tenable location.  One only needs to fly into the airport to realize the constraints that the recruit depot there is under—the city has surrounded the depot.  Recruits at San Diego conduct a great deal of training at Edson Range on Camp Pendleton to the North because the recruit depot is simply unable to accommodate their needs.    

Another thought might be the long-term cost benefits of having as single recruit depot, which are no doubt significant.  It is irrefutable that Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego’s land is valuable.  The Corps must be a good steward of the funds that taxpayers give it, and if there are ways to save money and accomplish the mission of turning men and women into Marines, then they must be considered.  Therefore, echoing the history of consolidation from four to two depots by WWI, maybe it is time for further consolidation into a single recruit depot.  As the consolidation of recruit training in the early 20th century limited irregularities, and produced more uniform Marines each with the same skills and abilities, so could further consolidation create a more hegemonic corps of Marines. 

Using tradition and history in decision making is instructive and sound.  However, using history and tradition to circumnavigate rigorous thinking and extensive discussions to come to a decision is detrimental to the process, and the overall success of the organization.  One must recognize that it is a tradition, in itself, for the Marine Corps to reexamine, reevaluate, adapt and sometimes dramatically change.  Therefore, the decision-making process of the location of recruit depots should not be mired by a strict adherence to history and tradition. As the needs of the nation change, so too must the Marine Corps. Don't let the history and traditions of the Corps hamper it from doing what it must do to survive, from doing what it has always done to survive--change, adapt, innovate, and progress.

 

Even the bravest, break

 I won't name names, but I will say, even the bravest of the brave, break.  

He enlisted on 29 April 1939 and by 1942 was with one of the Raider Battalions and was wounded at Guadalcanal, his actions there garnered him the Bronze Star.

Two years later, at Guam, he broke.  He was pulled off the line and sent back to the US.  This did not end his service.  

He continued service and by January 1952 he was in Korea.  Once again, he was wounded and awarded another Bronze Star. 

July 1952 he reenlisted for another six year hitch.  On 16 May 1954 he was dead from a heart attack;final rank Master Sergeant (then the highest enlisted rank).  

We can only push our service members just so hard before something has to give--their mental health, their physical health, their family's health. Thus it remains imperative for us as a Nation to continue to care for those who wore the uniform.

Master Sergeant, your service is remembered!

The People You Meet

 While on the hunt for more information on each of the (now) 60+ Marines who served in the various Polar expeditions through the 1940s and 1950s, I spent the morning looking at the service of Joseph J. Downey.  This is a lesson in research, the things you find, and the people you meet doing this type of work (be aware, a little long but plenty of pictures!)

First, let me tell you about Downey--I first find him as part of Operation NANOOK, in July 1946 as a Technical Sergeant.  My goal is to build a chronology of service so I can understand (maybe) why he was chosen for the operation -- what skills did he have that might have been useful? Or was he simply manpower.

To the muster rolls (via ancestry.com) I go.  Just plug his name in, date (Jul 1946) and see what else pops up.  As you can see, the page shows him as a Staff Sergeant in 1944--but not quite back far enough in time to really give you any info.

So, scroll down on the page and you find a much earlier date of 1937!

Now we're getting some where.  The list also shows an enlistment date of 12 July 1940, and with the Nov 1937 date, it's likely this 1940 is a reenlistment date.  A quick modification of the search parameters to 1940 vice 1946, and you find the July 1940 muster roll.  It confirms this IS a reenlistment date.

So at this point, Downey is in China with the 4th Marines!  He's a Corporal and in the QM.  But there's that 1937 date in there, let's go back and change the search parameters and see if we can get earlier.  Sure enough, we found a 1935 enlistment in the search results.

 

 

So again, changing the search parameters to give you 1935 results, we find that there are several entries for June 1935.  Just look at each one and see what you can find.  This time, the muster rolls shows another reenlistment--in Philadelphia.  Reviewing the other June 1935 results finds that Downey was discharged from the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve in order to join the Regular Marine Corps.

You keep repeating these steps until you find the initial date of enlistment.  In theory this should work.  Your only goal at this point is to find the initial entry into the Marine Corps; once you've done that, then you follow him forward month by month, year by year, unit by unit to build the chronology of service.  

I was doing pretty good, I had him back to 1935 and another search showed another enlistment date of 7 June 1934.  I thought I had him at his earliest enlistment date.  However, when narrowing the search parameters again, I found another Joseph J. Downey who enlisted in 1929.  But there was a gap between 1933 and 1934 in the search results.  This could be a quirk of ancestry or it could be two different Joseph J. Downey's.  It's not an uncommon name.  The 7 June 1934 entry states "joined by enlistment" and not reenlistment.  

Maybe it was two different Marines.  But there is only one way to find out, go to the 1929 enlistment and follow that Marine forward in time.  28 December 1929, the alternate Downey (Downey-A) enlisted at Parris Island; if he had enlisted in Philadelphia, it might have confirmed they were the same man.  However, forward we must go.

Downey-A goes on to serve at Quantico with the Maintenance Company of the 1st Regiment; while there he becomes an electrician (keep this in mind) and even some duty at Camp Rapidan (this is another story for another time).  Through his years of service, he ends up in San Diego, Puget Sound,  Pearl Harbor, and eventually Lakehurst where he's discharged on 27 September 1933 with "character excellent."

Still not sure if this is the same Downey, I start with the 7 June 1934 enlistment.  Downey-B enlists with 3d Battalion, 19th Reserve Regiment in Philadelphia.  Lakehurst and Philly aren't far apart, but still not really conclusive information if this is the same person.  Downey-B leaves the reserves in 1935 to joint the regulars and stays in Philly.  In May 1936, he's given temporary duty at Marine Barracks Lakehurst for duty "in connection with the landing of the airship HINDENBURG" which had crashed two days before.

 

 

I continue to follow Downey-B through his service; in October 1936 I got my first clue that these might be the same men.  Downey-B joined Marine Barracks Norfolk and his duty was listed as electrician!  Again, not concrete but still a possibility.

Keep following the muster rolls, Downey rises through the ranks, serves in China with the 4th Marines, returns to San Diego and joins the 2d Engineer Battalion, then the 18th Marines (Engineers) and then 2d Service Battalion.  He participates in Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa.  In October 1945, he's a Technical Sergeant stationed with the Service Battalion at Quantico.  Downey-B's service isn't over by a long shot.

For the next eight years, he participates in Operation NANOOK (where I first found him), serves in Guam, Yokosuka, Norfolk, and with 1st MAW in Korea before returning to the United States (MCAF Santa Ana) where he is discharged from active duty in July 1953, with a home address in Santa Ana (which I won't post but have down to the street level). His final rank was Master Sergeant, service number 225512.

I need more information to be sure these are the same Marine.  If he enlisted in 1929, I figure he's 18/19/20 years old.  So using ancestry to search with a birth year of 1911, I start trying to find the elusive Joseph J. Downey.  The California Death Index on Ancestry has a Joseph J. Downey who died in 1960 who lived in San Diego; date of birth listed as 10 Dec 1910.  This could be my guy, so using the exact dates, I narrow the search in ancestry. 

And the results are what I was hoping for--veterans gravesite information that matches some of what we know about Downey-B!

In the results is also a "findagrave" entry--sometimes these have photos of the headstones which can be very helpful confirming what we know.  This time, I was lucky--the headstone was photographed!

Master Sergeant Joseph John Downey (now I have a middle name!) and it does record WWII and Korea, which all matches.  Also in the search results are the internment control form, which is a HUGE BOON because it confirms the service number as 225612.  It's not a match to what I found, but that could be because I couldn't read the number clearly and wrote down what I saw--easily confirmed I was wrong and this IS Downey-B.  But how do we confirm if Downey-A and B are the same Marine?

In the search results is the Pennsylvania WWII Compensation Application.  Downey-B was from Pennsylvania so I click on it and begin reading it over.   Line 8 shows the service number of 225612, confirming Downey-B and just above it is the confirmation--Line 7 shows the date and place applicant entered active service--PARRIS ISLAND, 28 December 1929!  DOWNEY-A and B are the same Marine!

At this point, I have spent about 2 hours searching, guessing, theorizing, searching and finally victory.  It doesn't always happen this way.  Sometimes the names are just too common, or there's simply not enough information to go on.  

The internment control form stated that his widow was to be buried with him; therefore, I went back to the "findagrave" page and see that her name is highlighted--clicking it I see the photo of the reverse of Downey's headstone.  I smile at what I see.

CORPORAL Virginia M. Downey!  He married a fellow Marine! I was giddy--where did they meet? When did they marry? What's her maiden name? More searching on ancestry was required.  With the information I knew about Downey (middle name, date of birth and wife's first name), I searched the marriage records and found them!

They were married in DC! and there's her maiden name! Now I can... wait... what? Did they meet at Quantico!?  Did they serve in the same unit?!  Now, put her name in the muster roll search!!!

HUZZAH! Virginia enlisted 29 April 1944 in Pittsburgh, and after recruit training at Camp Lejeune, she was assigned to the Women's Reserve Battalion at Quantico with duty in the POST SERVICE BATTALION! They worked together in 1945!!!!  

Virginia served until sometime in 1946 and was discharged as a Corporal.  From her headstone, I see she died in 1999.  I found her obituary as well, she never remarried.  They were married for just under 11 years, and she never remarried.  It doesn't appear that they had any children as none are listed in the obituary.  

Research can lead you down many paths, but it can be very rewarding.  The places they went, the people they met and the things they did, are now once again relived--both of these Marines live again because of this exercise.  Maybe the few tips of my trade herein will help you in your research.  Ancestry's power grows with each day as they add more materials to their collection.  The only thing I have left to do with MSgt Downey is to obtain his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) from the National Archives in St Louis (when they reopen) as it will fill in gaps in what I found in the muster rolls, confirm awards/decorations and tell me if he retired or not (can't tell from the muster rolls this time).  It will also confirm if he and Virginia had children.

Thanks for sticking it out with me on this one; I thought it might be helpful for you to see how I find what I do, and how analytical thinking and logic can play a role.

Master Sergeant Joseph John Downey and Corporal Virginia Marie Downey, you live again!

Birthdays

Because Twitter limits the size of the tweet, one can't properly address some issues via that medium.  Such is the case today regarding the birthday of the Marine Corps.  I was unable to jump into the fray as I was on a drive to clear my head and wasn't looking at my phone.  In fact, I was listening to Dan Rather's What Unites Us--but that's for another day.

So if I understand the situation properly, Task and Purpose's editor wrote a short piece pointing out the obvious: the day that today's Marines revere isn't exactly the day that they were founded.  A flurry of tweets began and I got tagged in the middle.  When I got back to a place where I could read the piece by Mr. Szoldra, I was pleasantly surprised to see he did his homework and what he reported was factually accurate.

Having read nearly every stitch of LtCol McClellan's papers, writings, personal correspondence and talked with his family, I have a pretty good inkling of what his intentions were when he proposed that Gen Lejeune change the date of the birthday celebration.

We all know that Lejeune was keen on making sure the Marine Corps was seen in a positive light--he was the master of public affairs.  I believe then-Major McClellan's intentions were pure, and simple.  One could not possibly have a United States Marine Corps without the Continental Marine Corps.  The Continental Marine Corps gave birth to the United States Marine Corps, and thus McClellan sought to include the legacy of those earlier American Marines in the history of the US Marines.  

One might think this a bit of a stretch; however, it is in keeping with the lineage and honors principles of Marine Corps units today.  There are historical antecedents to units even though the direct linkage may not exist, or be seemingly weak.  

 For instance, the oldest squadron (note: oldest, non-flying squadron) in the Marine Corps today is Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 11, which dates back to 1 December 1921 when it was known as Flight "I", 2d Air Squadron.  Now, one might look at that and say the two aren't related, but they are through a series of redesignations/reorganizations.  

However, if one argues "what about units without direct links?!"  Good question, take the current 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigade.  It has had slightly different designations in it's history and it has had many breaks in it's history, however, it is still the same unit.  Thus is the case for the Continental and US Marines.

In the end, no organization has a clean history--clean meaning one that isn't full of "legends" and "lore" along with the truth.  When I was paid to be a historian for the Corps, and I was asked about these inaccuracies directly, I told the truth.  More than once I was met with a gaping mouth, surprised statements of "my drill instructor lied to me?"  I often answered, "its only a lie if they know it's not true."  I did my best to make sure the truth was there, but there is room enough in the history for the legends and lore, as long as you ensure the truth goes with them.  See my previous post about the 4th Marines for an example of "lore." However, there is far more truth to the history of the Corps than there are falsehoods. There are plenty of "sea stories" that aren't true, but again, far more truth. One just has to look beyond the pretty pictures and "sexy" stories.

Today's American Marines (note the distinction) celebrate 10 November 1775 as the birth of the Corps.  Yes, it is the date in which the Continental Marines were founded, and the date the US Marines adopted as their own.  There are two dates, and it's true many don't realize the story behind how this happened.  McClellan wasn't trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, rather ensure that the history of the Continental Marines was properly honored; Lejeune was trying to give his Corps deeper roots and thus more legitimacy with the American population.

But if you look, the US Navy has two dates as well!

If this thread of tweets manages to cause Marines to dig a little deeper into their history, then huzzah!  Scratching the surface and being curious is a good thing.

Calling Bull***t

 I promise, I will TRY to keep this one short and to the point.  

The history of the Corps is replete with all sorts of legends, lore, and simply inaccurate stories.  There are simply too many to get into tonight.  However, one that I used to love to shoot down at every chance I got, was that the 4th Marines weren't allowed to return to the US because they surrendered in 1942 in the Philippines.  

It's not enough that the regiment got out of China just as the Japanese were taking over, it's not enough that the regiment fought like mad for nearly 6 months against the Japanese in the Philippines without hope of resupply or reinforcement, and its not enough that when they finally had to surrender the survivors were subjected to the Bataan Death March where many more died, but to pour salt in the wounds and say the regiment isn't allowed to return to the US--that's just a crock!

 If this sounds far fetched, it's because it is.  I call bull***t on it, and have for years.  Why? Because I've read enough history, reviewed enough official records and studied enough USMC force structure in my 20 years to know the truth.

 The fact is right here. (mic drop)

 

Oh and for those out there who tried tell me that VMF-313 was the 313th Marine Vertical Fighting Squadron, allow me to throw the mic AT you and scream "NOT EVEN CLOSE."

Rant over.